4 ms·

Finland begs to differ: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War

• pm90 9y ago
  In all fairness, that was before the advent of modern weaponry, including precision guided munitions, cruise missiles etc. I highly doubt, for instance, Finnish supply chains would survive a sustained attack by Russia today.
  • nickpinkston 9y ago
    Afghanistan begs to differ :-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80...
    • pm90 9y ago
      The US invaded Afghanistan in a matter of months. What is being questioned here is not the ability of Russia to hold control over Finland, but whether it could quickly topple its Sovereign government, which it couldn't do in the linked war.
      • nickpinkston 9y ago
        They invaded, but that's not "winning". Plenty of people died and the US didn't really accomplish very much on the ground. Karzai has very weak control and his enemies multiply. Vietnam could also be used - they just destroyed us with attrition and a culture that had acceptance of heavy losses. Fancy weapons aren't a panacea - "war is politics by other means" - the people in the end are all that matter.
        • pm90 9y ago
          Whoever talked about winning? Do you have a point you want to make or do you just want to have the last word? I have specifically stated that the question was not whether the war was won, but whether an invading military could quickly topple the country and gain control over it. The Vietnam war was never fought as a war of invasion, but rather one of propping up an anti-communist ally. They are not the same.